THE POSTAL SAVINGS BANK ACT 
37 
indemnity bond. These provisions appeared to 
a majority of the Senate to meet the require 
ments of safety and of an adequate interest yield, 
and to keep the funds in the local community as 
effectually as any plan that could be devised. 
Shortly before the bill came to its vote in the 
Senate, however, it was vigorously attacked on 
the ground of unconstitutionality, particularly 
by Senators Rayner of Maryland, Bailey of 
Texas and Root of New York. The principal de 
fenders of the constitutionality of the bill were 
Senators Sutherland of Utah and Bradley of 
Kentucky. The constitutional arguments were 
on an unusually high plane. The constitutional 
ity of the hill was defended, of course, under the 
doctrine of implied powers. Ignoring the discus 
sion over the “welfare clause” of the Constitu 
tion, which on the one side was interpreted to 
mean almost everything and on the other side to 
mean almost nothing, we find the proponents of 
constitutionality basing their arguments chiefly 
on three clauses of the Constitution. (1) The 
power “to coin money” and “regulate the value 
thereof” was to he interpreted “to confer upon 
Congress the power not only to coin money hut 
to provide and maintain an adequate currency for 
the country.” Postal savings banks would be a 
proper means to that end, since they would call